Talk:Nicobar long-tailed macaque/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 27, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead does not fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD

   There are a number of single sentences which need to be incorporated into paragraphs

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In captivity it can have a lifespan of up to approximately thirty years, however in the wild this is much shorter. I can't find this in the cited source [1]

   it is also known to eat small crabs, frogs and other creatures taken from the shorelines and mangroves when foraging in these environments. the source [2] just mentions crabs not frogs and other creatures.

   Generally I would suggest putting inline cites after all paras, rather than in the middle of paras. I suspect that all the statements are citable, but it is not clear at present which statements are sourced properly.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is short and poorly written, with poor coverage of certain subjects compared to other mammal good articles. It will probably require the original primary contributors to fix the problems noted; or a removal of uncited facts. This page should be delisted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, with which I generally concur - having notified the major contributors and projects, I shall wait out the seven days before delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As per comment by User:CJLL Wright below, I shall delist this now, the artcile can be brougt to WP:GAN when ready. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have made a start on addressing some of the concerns. Will work on it over the next few days, but as my time available for editing is pretty limited ATM I may not complete w/in the 7 days; might need a little more.

Couple questions/comments:

• re 1b :which single sentences did you have in mind? I expanded one, the rest of the current text seems suitably divided into paras, without making them unwieldy. Any concerns still on this front?
• On the same point, while a couple sentences cld be added to the lead, given it's a moderately sized article and essentially descriptive rather than narrative in nature, not sure that it could be expanded much more without being redundant.
• re 2, will get the cites added/clarified for those couple of statements; pg no's too for the source books
• You give a for the rest of the points, so presume ok for these, unless you've more comments to make..?
• re Innotata's comments:
  • "poorly written"—can you indicate examples, please. It's difficult to address criticisms when they're non-specific.
  • "is short"—AFIAK, article length (beyond a stub) is not a deal-breaking factor in GA criteria, which explicitly allows for them to be "short" (however one might define that).
  • "poor coverage of certain subjects [compared to others]"—please bear in mind, particularly when making comparisons, that this article is about a subspecies. Apart from its geographical / genetic isolation and perhaps some minor morphological differences, in all other respects M. f. umbrosa shares pretty much the same characteristics as the other nine subspecies of Macaca fascicularis. The main article on the species, Crab-eating Macaque, covers those common/generic characteristics in some reasonable detail. I suppose that such info could be carried over into this (sub-)article, but only at the risk of reprising the bulk of the species one—which in all likelyhood contains at least some of the 'missing' subject material alluded to. I'll see about expanding where it makes sense, & doesn't involve needless repetition. What aspects in particular do you think demand mention here (given there's a main article on the species anyway)?

    Also note, there have evidently been only a bare handful of studies & publications written containing details specific to this subspecies. Possibly there's something newly written or available since this article was first put together 4 years ago, but the sources (and info) given here are about the only ones locatable. There's much more written on the species (as a whole) of course, but the majority of these studies seem to be based on other (more accessible/widespread) subspecies. Where M. f. umbrosa is mentioned at all in these, it's usually only a sentence or two. There are undoubtedly areas for which the data are simply not collected or published for this subspecies.

In any event, as/when time permits will try attending to the actionable items.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is all comparison. This contains very little information on behaviour. It has a far too short lead, and the text has little organisation and flow (the distribution section begins with a count, for instance). It remains a decent enough article, but a complete copyedit and more information (specific to the subspecies) are necessary to keep it to the current GA standards, viz the other GAs. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the request for examples: the whole article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange to say you can't write much on behaviour. It seems Saxaul Sparrow, Chestnut Sparrow, Lundomys, and Crested Shelduck, in example, are less well-known. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said, at all. I said more could be written, but it would necessarily repeat information already appearing on the species' article, crab-eating macaque. Apart from the fact that its behavioural characteristics are pretty much all shared in common with other crab-eating macaques (after all, it is one), most of the literature describing the species' behaviour is not specific to the ssp. M. f. umbrosa. It would be like, given the existence of the Saxaul Sparrow article, you or someone else decided to create an article on one of its subspecies, say P. a. nigricans. How much unique information on behaviour 'specific to the subspecies' could be added to that new article, that would not already be true of, and mentioned in, the species' article? And how much of the information written about the species behaviour was actually collected from and based upon observations of P. a. nigricans, particularly? As long as we don't mind having more generic information in a more specific topic, then it can be added; but not without redundancy.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a photograph of a member of this sub-species. LadyofShalott 05:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed but it is not a GA requirement, can we stick to the Good Article criteria for this re-assessment, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate." That criterion would seem to make it a relevant point. LadyofShalott 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat it is not a requirement - it would be good top have a picture, but I am not going to de-list if there is no picture and the addition of a picture will not make me ignore the concerns noted above. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Given living specimens are to be found only on those 3 islands, & at a zoo in Port Blair, appropriately licensed photos wld be hard to come by. There'd be a better chance perhaps of finding a drawing from one of the earlier faunal survey publs. now in the public domain, but haven't been able to turn one up as yet.

OK, have been doing some work on this the past week but my wiki-editing schedule was interrupted by some mid-week travel and other RL commitments. I did however manage to spend some time in research & locating some other decent sources to use, which I've added in. Have also updated some of the citations as requested. Will need a few more days' grace to work material from the additional sources into the text, and in the process take care of any lead- or section-length / coverage concerns. So if it's possible to keep on hold for a bit longer, would be much obliged.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK hold extended to 27 February. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Afraid that circumstances have conspired with some pressing RL matters and have not been able to expand this further right now; I doubt I'll be able to devote enough time to it next week either. If you wish to bump it down then ok, & when things become a little less hectic later on I'll work it up & put it back thru the GA mill. Thx for ur patience anyway. Rgds, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)